1. It's simple and free.
2. Your username cannot be used by guests.
3. You can personalise your profile picture.
4. Comments remain editable for 5 mins after submitting.
5. There are no captchas when you submit a comment.
6. You are informed of replies to your comments.
7. Your comments are archived for future reference.

How equal is America?

(11:47) Economic inequality in America has come to the fore because it directly relates to budget cuts and revenue raising. But how the public perceive economic inequality and the reality are very different, as psychologist Dan Ariely found out when his pie-chart quiz was tested on people in the street.

In most cases the rich are rich for a reason...they have worked hard and made the right decisions. Is there some luck involved sometimes....sure.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Gringo(2308 days ago)

Are you serious ? Most rich people are rich because they inherited the money or basically stole it from others (by for example over charging for something, so they could own more things while other starve). This attitude makes me sick. Greed is rife in this world, bring on 2012 we ******* deserve it.

Are you serious ? Most rich people are rich because they inherited the money or basically stole it from others (by for example over charging for something, so they could own more things while other starve). This attitude makes me sick. Greed is rife in this world, bring on 2012 we ******* deserve it.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Argle(2307 days ago)

You gotta quit reading communist propaganda. MOST rich get that way by working hard at either their education or a business. Most of the broke people I know slacked off in school, would never think about putting in extra time at the job and take whatever they could whenever they can from whomever. Yeah, sure, there ARE rich get that way by scamming however they can, but I've noticed that those particular rich inordinately seem to support totalitarian poliitcal systems like socialism, so go figure.

You gotta quit reading communist propaganda. MOST rich get that way by working hard at either their education or a business. Most of the broke people I know slacked off in school, would never think about putting in extra time at the job and take whatever they could whenever they can from whomever. Yeah, sure, there ARE rich get that way by scamming however they can, but I've noticed that those particular rich inordinately seem to support totalitarian poliitcal systems like socialism, so go figure.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2308 days ago)

Depends exactly what you mean. Only 6% of people in the U.S. with assets worth a million dollars or more got their wealth solely from inheritance. 69% received no significant inherited wealth while the remainder are a combination of inheritance and work...Over-charging is certainly a problem. It generally occurs when for some reason someone has monopoly power in the market. There are laws against it of course but since the greatest offenders are government and it's sanctioned agents, they don't do much to contain the problem...Greed is also a problem, what I find curious is some people think it is alright for poor people to be greedy, surely if greed is a moral vice it's a moral vice without exception.

Depends exactly what you mean. Only 6% of people in the U.S. with assets worth a million dollars or more got their wealth solely from inheritance. 69% received no significant inherited wealth while the remainder are a combination of inheritance and work...Over-charging is certainly a problem. It generally occurs when for some reason someone has monopoly power in the market. There are laws against it of course but since the greatest offenders are government and it's sanctioned agents, they don't do much to contain the problem...Greed is also a problem, what I find curious is some people think it is alright for poor people to be greedy, surely if greed is a moral vice it's a moral vice without exception.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2308 days ago)

All this demonstrates is most people don't understand mathematics or demographics. There are a number of similar experiments were the persons interviewed fail miserably to estimate the effect of compound interest, their chance of dying in various ways etc.

All this demonstrates is most people don't understand mathematics or demographics. There are a number of similar experiments were the persons interviewed fail miserably to estimate the effect of compound interest, their chance of dying in various ways etc.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2309 days ago)

Well, there you have it, they asked David Letterman's studio audience. I suppose it could have been worse, they could have gone to a WWE match...Suppose you just gave everyone the same salary from the age of 21, then have half the people save nothing, a quarter save 10% the next eighth save 20% etc. then run the program for a few generations. What do you know, it looks just like this pie chart.

Well, there you have it, they asked David Letterman's studio audience. I suppose it could have been worse, they could have gone to a WWE match...Suppose you just gave everyone the same salary from the age of 21, then have half the people save nothing, a quarter save 10% the next eighth save 20% etc. then run the program for a few generations. What do you know, it looks just like this pie chart.

He doesn't like the point expressed in this video. He's trying to shift blame for wealth inequality onto individual choices. I have no real problem with wealth inequality in general except for how financial mechanisms tend to favor the already wealthy and reduce the inelegance of the wealthy over successive generations. And since wealth equates to power we eventually end up with retards making decisions that effect everyone. At this point fascism tends to rear its ugly head. Think president Bush.

He doesn't like the point expressed in this video. He's trying to shift blame for wealth inequality onto individual choices. I have no real problem with wealth inequality in general except for how financial mechanisms tend to favor the already wealthy and reduce the inelegance of the wealthy over successive generations. And since wealth equates to power we eventually end up with retards making decisions that effect everyone. At this point fascism tends to rear its ugly head. Think president Bush.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2309 days ago)

Except for the part about not liking the point of the video you are generally right. I neither like or dislike the point, I'm demonstrating it is so disingenuous as to amount to a lie...I agree about the problem of inheritance but not all problems have solutions. Part of the reason people work is for the benefit of their offspring. Until you can rewrite the genetic code and create some sort of ideal post-human I don't think you can eliminate this drive, only try to find the most effective way to harness it...Fascism (or rather National Socialism without the racial nonsense) is where we are all headed, Obama has moved the ball just as far in that direction as Bush. WWII granted us a brief reprieve, enjoy liberty while you can.

Except for the part about not liking the point of the video you are generally right. I neither like or dislike the point, I'm demonstrating it is so disingenuous as to amount to a lie...I agree about the problem of inheritance but not all problems have solutions. Part of the reason people work is for the benefit of their offspring. Until you can rewrite the genetic code and create some sort of ideal post-human I don't think you can eliminate this drive, only try to find the most effective way to harness it...Fascism (or rather National Socialism without the racial nonsense) is where we are all headed, Obama has moved the ball just as far in that direction as Bush. WWII granted us a brief reprieve, enjoy liberty while you can.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2308 days ago)

It doesn't require rewriting genetic code just allowing sense to permeate right wing propaganda...
1) Business cycle management. When things go tits up, government suspends operations/replaces management and makes sure loses are shared equitably.
2) No tax on labour. Taxes should be on unearned income only e.g rent.
3) Any attempts by financial/corporate/gover nment to interfere with monetary/fiscal control of the economy should carry the harshest penalties possible.

It doesn't require rewriting genetic code just allowing sense to permeate right wing propaganda...
1) Business cycle management. When things go tits up, government suspends operations/replaces management and makes sure loses are shared equitably.
2) No tax on labour. Taxes should be on unearned income only e.g rent.
3) Any attempts by financial/corporate/gover nment to interfere with monetary/fiscal control of the economy should carry the harshest penalties possible.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2308 days ago)

I think it should be pretty plain to anyone that all taxes are on everybody. The economy is like a web, you can distort the warp and woof with tax policy but in the end what matters is how efficiently people are working, economic policy should be directed to that end. Putting bureaucrats in charge and politicizing business decisions is entirely counter-productive...I agree corporations are a problem, from a legal perspective they are a sort of person but a person with the advantage of living indefinitely...Unfortunat ely there isn't enough unearned income to pay the costs of government as they now stand, not even if you took it all and if you increased the taxes on it rents and corporate profits would simply be increased so that the good old working man would have to pay more for his humble flat and his toothpaste etc.

I think it should be pretty plain to anyone that all taxes are on everybody. The economy is like a web, you can distort the warp and woof with tax policy but in the end what matters is how efficiently people are working, economic policy should be directed to that end. Putting bureaucrats in charge and politicizing business decisions is entirely counter-productive...I agree corporations are a problem, from a legal perspective they are a sort of person but a person with the advantage of living indefinitely...Unfortunat ely there isn't enough unearned income to pay the costs of government as they now stand, not even if you took it all and if you increased the taxes on it rents and corporate profits would simply be increased so that the good old working man would have to pay more for his humble flat and his toothpaste etc.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2308 days ago)

"Unfortunately there isn't enough unearned income to pay the costs of government" - are you sure about that - LINK

"Unfortunately there isn't enough unearned income to pay the costs of government" - are you sure about that - LINK

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2308 days ago)

Your link leads to all sorts of stuff, could you be more specific?..The tax revenue from capital gains, in 2006 (the last year I could find) was 110 billion. In that year Capital gains and dividends were taxed at 15%, rental income is fully taxable. The total Federal budget was 2.700 billion. It is important also to note capital gains 'income' is partly nothing but the increase caused by inflation. If you get a 10% return on an investment but there was 5% inflation your real return was only 5% but you must pay taxes on the whole 10%.

Your link leads to all sorts of stuff, could you be more specific?..The tax revenue from capital gains, in 2006 (the last year I could find) was 110 billion. In that year Capital gains and dividends were taxed at 15%, rental income is fully taxable. The total Federal budget was 2.700 billion. It is important also to note capital gains 'income' is partly nothing but the increase caused by inflation. If you get a 10% return on an investment but there was 5% inflation your real return was only 5% but you must pay taxes on the whole 10%.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2308 days ago)

Thanks for the explanation of inflation, god you Americans are dumb. As you will not be aware, once upon a time everything was owned by kings and lords. They managed to maintain this fascist state of affairs by convincing populations of stories about how god gave them the right to be psychopathic wankers and of course by acting like psychopathic wankers. Fast forward some time and merchants realized that they too can behave like psychopathic wankers giving birth to the empires of Europe.
The evolution of civilization then continues to the point where psychopaths like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman decide to convince people that because they are unable to empathize with other human beings that empathy is impossible and therefore good doesn't exist (or evil, it doesn't really matter).
America decides to base its entire ideology on this lack of empathy and spread it around the globe along with nonsensical economic ideas stolen form the British designed to sneakily steal natural resources.
Unfortunately because information became uncontrollable via the internet and because gullible fascists didn't realize that data mining techniques didn't actually work American ripped itself apart. Oh sorry, that part hasn't happened yet, oops.
FUAF

Thanks for the explanation of inflation, god you Americans are dumb. As you will not be aware, once upon a time everything was owned by kings and lords. They managed to maintain this fascist state of affairs by convincing populations of stories about how god gave them the right to be psychopathic wankers and of course by acting like psychopathic wankers. Fast forward some time and merchants realized that they too can behave like psychopathic wankers giving birth to the empires of Europe.
The evolution of civilization then continues to the point where psychopaths like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman decide to convince people that because they are unable to empathize with other human beings that empathy is impossible and therefore good doesn't exist (or evil, it doesn't really matter).
America decides to base its entire ideology on this lack of empathy and spread it around the globe along with nonsensical economic ideas stolen form the British designed to sneakily steal natural resources.
Unfortunately because information became uncontrollable via the internet and because gullible fascists didn't realize that data mining techniques didn't actually work American ripped itself apart. Oh sorry, that part hasn't happened yet, oops.
FUAF

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2308 days ago)

And thank you for the very entertaining jeremiad...You, whatever you ares are so very...full of...ideas. For example you must have a well, rather idiosyncratic definition of 'fascist', as I confess it doesn't correspond to any I'm familiar with. Likewise 'psychopathic', 'steal', 'empathy' and 'uncontrollable' don't seem to have their ordinary sense in context. That and your rather curious distillation of history aside, I suspect it's not so much a lack of charity (empathy is all very well but it is merely a consciousness, a sharing of another person's feelings, it is passive) as an appreciation of the practical results of actions which prevents a more equal distribution of material comfort in the world. That is what you are going on about isn't it. it's rather hard to tell.

And thank you for the very entertaining jeremiad...You, whatever you ares are so very...full of...ideas. For example you must have a well, rather idiosyncratic definition of 'fascist', as I confess it doesn't correspond to any I'm familiar with. Likewise 'psychopathic', 'steal', 'empathy' and 'uncontrollable' don't seem to have their ordinary sense in context. That and your rather curious distillation of history aside, I suspect it's not so much a lack of charity (empathy is all very well but it is merely a consciousness, a sharing of another person's feelings, it is passive) as an appreciation of the practical results of actions which prevents a more equal distribution of material comfort in the world. That is what you are going on about isn't it. it's rather hard to tell.

'Fascist is an interesting etymological study, it's a political term of course and those are always particularly knotty as they are subject to the deliberate misconstruction, misdirection and manipulation which are the stuff of political debate. The generally useful OED is not much help defining 'fascist' historically as an Italian anti-communist and generally only as a person of authoritarian right-wing views. Authoritaian is clear enough but not specific, right wing refers to the French National Assembly of 1789 and by extension to 'conservatives and reactionaries'. But these terms in turn bear little meaning except in relation to circumstances. The conservatives in the French assembly believed very different things from an iconic conservative like Edmund Burke. So the trail in that direction ends in vapour. So unless 'fascist' is to be a generalized term of abuse, sort of a grown up version of a playground taunt e.g. 'mean poopy-head' (which is indeed in my experience how it is often used), we have to go back to those Italians and what they believed and the core of that is the individual's relation to the state. Fascists set themselves in opposition to Communism and the liberal (in the Lockean 19th sense) ideals current at the time and defined themselves thus. In liberal society the government is the servant of the individual, it exists as a necessary evil to facilitate whatever purposes persons decide for themselves, while under fascism the individual exits to serve the state which is alone allowed to decide what purposes he is to have. The authoritarianism, coercion and other aspects of fascism follow logically from this.

'Fascist is an interesting etymological study, it's a political term of course and those are always particularly knotty as they are subject to the deliberate misconstruction, misdirection and manipulation which are the stuff of political debate. The generally useful OED is not much help defining 'fascist' historically as an Italian anti-communist and generally only as a person of authoritarian right-wing views. Authoritaian is clear enough but not specific, right wing refers to the French National Assembly of 1789 and by extension to 'conservatives and reactionaries'. But these terms in turn bear little meaning except in relation to circumstances. The conservatives in the French assembly believed very different things from an iconic conservative like Edmund Burke. So the trail in that direction ends in vapour. So unless 'fascist' is to be a generalized term of abuse, sort of a grown up version of a playground taunt e.g. 'mean poopy-head' (which is indeed in my experience how it is often used), we have to go back to those Italians and what they believed and the core of that is the individual's relation to the state. Fascists set themselves in opposition to Communism and the liberal (in the Lockean 19th sense) ideals current at the time and defined themselves thus. In liberal society the government is the servant of the individual, it exists as a necessary evil to facilitate whatever purposes persons decide for themselves, while under fascism the individual exits to serve the state which is alone allowed to decide what purposes he is to have. The authoritarianism, coercion and other aspects of fascism follow logically from this.

For what? A simple search for 'core beliefs of fascism' will agree with my observation and give more detail. Most of these include more emphasis on the exclusionary aspects, the rampant nationalism and racialism which I do not disagree with, my point is those aspects follow from the need to forge people into a unity as is required by the subjection of the people to the direction of the state and the will of it's leader. If you need a primer with capsule summaries of political ideas you could do worse than this site: LINK fellow is some sort of Libertarian but he tries to be objective which is as much as you can expect with politics.

For what? A simple search for 'core beliefs of fascism' will agree with my observation and give more detail. Most of these include more emphasis on the exclusionary aspects, the rampant nationalism and racialism which I do not disagree with, my point is those aspects follow from the need to forge people into a unity as is required by the subjection of the people to the direction of the state and the will of it's leader. If you need a primer with capsule summaries of political ideas you could do worse than this site: LINK fellow is some sort of Libertarian but he tries to be objective which is as much as you can expect with politics.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

Its amazing how you can regurgitate so much information without actually saying anything.
If you need things kept simple try this:
"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that." - Lord Acton
What has been happening in America over the last decade?
Try this:
LINK I also recommend you get a copy of this:
LINK

Its amazing how you can regurgitate so much information without actually saying anything.
If you need things kept simple try this:
"And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that." - Lord Acton
What has been happening in America over the last decade?
Try this:
LINK I also recommend you get a copy of this:
LINK

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

You really ought to read a bit more from the people you quote, or perhaps just read a bit more generally. Lord Acton, for all his pithy text bites was a great fan of the constitution of the Confederate States of America. He wrote to Robert E. Lee just after the war calling it "the most perfect yet devised by man". I could perhaps forgive a political philosopher for thinking institutionalized racialist slavery was OK in 1800 or perhaps even 1840 but by 1870 he really should know better...But I digress, I suppose I don't see the power held by capitalist magnates so much as a direct threat as a necessary evil and counterbalance. In a perfect world political power would be truly equally distributed but I can't see that ever happening. The best we can hope for is balanced forces negating each other so we can live with the maximum liberty compatible with circumstances. Demagogic collectivists scare me just as much as brutal plutocrats, more really because there are limits to the megalomania of individuals but mobs and mass movements exhibit atavistic insanity only natural disasters can match. Caligula couldn't hold a candle to Pol Pot.

You really ought to read a bit more from the people you quote, or perhaps just read a bit more generally. Lord Acton, for all his pithy text bites was a great fan of the constitution of the Confederate States of America. He wrote to Robert E. Lee just after the war calling it "the most perfect yet devised by man". I could perhaps forgive a political philosopher for thinking institutionalized racialist slavery was OK in 1800 or perhaps even 1840 but by 1870 he really should know better...But I digress, I suppose I don't see the power held by capitalist magnates so much as a direct threat as a necessary evil and counterbalance. In a perfect world political power would be truly equally distributed but I can't see that ever happening. The best we can hope for is balanced forces negating each other so we can live with the maximum liberty compatible with circumstances. Demagogic collectivists scare me just as much as brutal plutocrats, more really because there are limits to the megalomania of individuals but mobs and mass movements exhibit atavistic insanity only natural disasters can match. Caligula couldn't hold a candle to Pol Pot.

Well, yeah. Is this supposed to be a revelation of some kind? Criminals and terrorists are subject to many of the same economic constraints as anyone else, how is this germane?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

ok this really is the last post... You should actual watch all it, if your prepared to comment on a talk after only reading the summary or watching the first couple of minutes then I now know all I need to. Didnt you say something reading more? Try some economics if really want to understand anything!

ok this really is the last post... You should actual watch all it, if your prepared to comment on a talk after only reading the summary or watching the first couple of minutes then I now know all I need to. Didnt you say something reading more? Try some economics if really want to understand anything!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

I watched it all the way through and that is the only solid thing in it. She makes side remarks and characterizations from time to time some of which I agreed with and some I though not well thought out but the only argument she actually delineated comes down to criminals and terrorists are subject to the same economic constraints as everyone else. It's an argument I've heard before in much better detail and I find it quite convincing. There isn't a lot of operational difference between organized crime and government in my view...I still don't see how this has much to do with how wealth is distributed in America, except in the most tangential sort of way.

I watched it all the way through and that is the only solid thing in it. She makes side remarks and characterizations from time to time some of which I agreed with and some I though not well thought out but the only argument she actually delineated comes down to criminals and terrorists are subject to the same economic constraints as everyone else. It's an argument I've heard before in much better detail and I find it quite convincing. There isn't a lot of operational difference between organized crime and government in my view...I still don't see how this has much to do with how wealth is distributed in America, except in the most tangential sort of way.

Again I'd agree the financial industry has too much influence, the U.S. has and still does engage in 'economic imperialism' etc. What i disagree about is why this has happened. I see it as a failure of governance and therefore don't have much hope governance can solve the problem. Or rather in trying to solve some of the problems of capitalism and market economy government has created this situation, now we told they are just the ones to fix the problem.

Again I'd agree the financial industry has too much influence, the U.S. has and still does engage in 'economic imperialism' etc. What i disagree about is why this has happened. I see it as a failure of governance and therefore don't have much hope governance can solve the problem. Or rather in trying to solve some of the problems of capitalism and market economy government has created this situation, now we told they are just the ones to fix the problem.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

Its a failure of culture, as you where exhibiting earlier in your selective answers. Shame. Still believe inequality is justified?

Its a failure of culture, as you where exhibiting earlier in your selective answers. Shame. Still believe inequality is justified?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

I have never thought it was justified, more like unavoidable or the alternative is worse. It's unjust that some people are more intelligent, more attractive etc. but trying to make the situation more just only makes it worse...I don't know what you mean by selective answers, I couldn't get any of the other links to work.

I have never thought it was justified, more like unavoidable or the alternative is worse. It's unjust that some people are more intelligent, more attractive etc. but trying to make the situation more just only makes it worse...I don't know what you mean by selective answers, I couldn't get any of the other links to work.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

No, its because your concept of free markets is BS. Its YOUR free market i.e. the market that you control. Your free market is YOUR EMPIRE (that's now over - shortest empire ever) - isolated continent as well, interesting.

No, its because your concept of free markets is BS. Its YOUR free market i.e. the market that you control. Your free market is YOUR EMPIRE (that's now over - shortest empire ever) - isolated continent as well, interesting.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

The concept of free market isn't exactly BS, it's more an unattainable abstraction, like an exact right angle or a perfect golf swing. In any case I don't recall using the phrase 'free market' because it is so misleading. I generally just say 'market'. A market is chaotic, (mostly) happy mutual robbery, though it does need a policeman even if, like everyone else, he is on the take...Perhaps the shortest global empire, though it isn't exactly over and it's to be expected since it was largely a financial domination which is much more ephemeral than actually having troops to shoot people and things in the traditional fashion of empires when your conquests decide they want rid of you.

The concept of free market isn't exactly BS, it's more an unattainable abstraction, like an exact right angle or a perfect golf swing. In any case I don't recall using the phrase 'free market' because it is so misleading. I generally just say 'market'. A market is chaotic, (mostly) happy mutual robbery, though it does need a policeman even if, like everyone else, he is on the take...Perhaps the shortest global empire, though it isn't exactly over and it's to be expected since it was largely a financial domination which is much more ephemeral than actually having troops to shoot people and things in the traditional fashion of empires when your conquests decide they want rid of you.

A mixed bag of assertions but aside from a general mood of dread they are trying to convey I didn't detect any coherent argument. I have read John Perkins book BTW and thought it quite misleading, or rather so filtered as to be useless. It's not that what he says is untrue so much as there is so much more he isn't considering that the picture he paints is hopelessly distorted. I'm also familiar with Noam Chomsky's writings, while I think it might be nice to live in a world where his vision was possible, in this one I think it would collapse into nightmare. People like him think they can make human beings into angels if they just engineer the right environment and that is a conceit I, sadly, can not share.

A mixed bag of assertions but aside from a general mood of dread they are trying to convey I didn't detect any coherent argument. I have read John Perkins book BTW and thought it quite misleading, or rather so filtered as to be useless. It's not that what he says is untrue so much as there is so much more he isn't considering that the picture he paints is hopelessly distorted. I'm also familiar with Noam Chomsky's writings, while I think it might be nice to live in a world where his vision was possible, in this one I think it would collapse into nightmare. People like him think they can make human beings into angels if they just engineer the right environment and that is a conceit I, sadly, can not share.

Latest comment: It would not run and there is no clue in the information provided by which I could find it. My understanding of empathy comes from the accepted meaning of the word. Empathy is sensitivity to another creature's feelings (though it can also sometimes be used of a thing, like a painting). It is passive. Charity is active, why confound the two? Has empathy become a euphemism because there is something unappealing about charity? Or are you talking about sympathy?

Latest comment: It would not run and there is no clue in the information provided by which I could find it. My understanding of empathy comes from the accepted meaning of the word. Empathy is sensitivity to another creature's feelings (though it can also sometimes be used of a thing, like a painting). It is passive. Charity is active, why confound the two? Has empathy become a euphemism because there is something unappealing about charity? Or are you talking about sympathy?

Interesting that you ignore this blatant piece of propaganda by the 'reformed' tea party and news international.
It states that the Federal Reserve (USA central bank) is controlled by the British Bank of England (UK central bank) which is controlled by the Rothschild family dynasty (Israel?). Understand money? Very unlikely!

Interesting that you ignore this blatant piece of propaganda by the 'reformed' tea party and news international.
It states that the Federal Reserve (USA central bank) is controlled by the British Bank of England (UK central bank) which is controlled by the Rothschild family dynasty (Israel?). Understand money? Very unlikely!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

I couldn't get it to run. If what you say is accurate they sound like paranoid loonies... I only know two persons who consider themselves in the TEA party movement and their understanding is it not organized enough to have such a specific view. More likely it is someone claiming to speak for the TEA movement to get attention for their odd notions. I recall Mrs. Thatcher skillfully exploiting such people in the British Labour party to put the fear of 'looney leftists' into the average British voter.

I couldn't get it to run. If what you say is accurate they sound like paranoid loonies... I only know two persons who consider themselves in the TEA party movement and their understanding is it not organized enough to have such a specific view. More likely it is someone claiming to speak for the TEA movement to get attention for their odd notions. I recall Mrs. Thatcher skillfully exploiting such people in the British Labour party to put the fear of 'looney leftists' into the average British voter.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

Also the m on .com has been removed on some links. Nice one boreme, just lost a visitor.

Yes, regulatory capture is a problem. The only workable solution is simpler laws, starting with circumscribing the near immunity from personal liability corporate officers now enjoy. These jobs have great financial rewards, let them bear concomitant risks.

Yes, regulatory capture is a problem. The only workable solution is simpler laws, starting with circumscribing the near immunity from personal liability corporate officers now enjoy. These jobs have great financial rewards, let them bear concomitant risks.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

Nope, the answer is transparency and a kind the world has never seen before. Unfortunately true transparency destroys advantage in financial markets. Funny how you still avoid any kind of recognition of elites - those living of others via control of perception (and money).

Nope, the answer is transparency and a kind the world has never seen before. Unfortunately true transparency destroys advantage in financial markets. Funny how you still avoid any kind of recognition of elites - those living of others via control of perception (and money).

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

Transparency, yes that is a better, more complete word for it transparency and accountability... I don't know about elites, how do you make any kind of border around such a concept. I distrust the idea. People are always trying to control other people by manipulating their perception, I suspect human intelligence may have evolved under the spur of the reproductive advantages gained by doing so... Money, or more generally using culture to direct resources is more recent and is also a mixed bag, on the one hand it has given us civilization, on the other hand civilization has always kind of sucked.

Transparency, yes that is a better, more complete word for it transparency and accountability... I don't know about elites, how do you make any kind of border around such a concept. I distrust the idea. People are always trying to control other people by manipulating their perception, I suspect human intelligence may have evolved under the spur of the reproductive advantages gained by doing so... Money, or more generally using culture to direct resources is more recent and is also a mixed bag, on the one hand it has given us civilization, on the other hand civilization has always kind of sucked.

My view of Marx is he purportedly was writing about economics and politics, which should be a science and an art respectively but what he was really writing was morality and religion. What people should be, what they should do rather than what people are like and what they can do.

My view of Marx is he purportedly was writing about economics and politics, which should be a science and an art respectively but what he was really writing was morality and religion. What people should be, what they should do rather than what people are like and what they can do.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

Are you a wanna-be psychopath? You should probably learn how to recognize them, you're obviously close.
do you believe when you die...
1) you're soul goes to a better place.
2) you're life-force ends.
3) the world around you ceases to exist.

Are you a wanna-be psychopath? You should probably learn how to recognize them, you're obviously close.
do you believe when you die...
1) you're soul goes to a better place.
2) you're life-force ends.
3) the world around you ceases to exist.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

I'm a pragmatist, a species obviously in short supply where you live, or perhaps they just avoid you - that seems more likely. I have never died nor have I ever knowingly spoken to someone who has so I don't have the foggiest idea what happens.

I'm a pragmatist, a species obviously in short supply where you live, or perhaps they just avoid you - that seems more likely. I have never died nor have I ever knowingly spoken to someone who has so I don't have the foggiest idea what happens.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

your just incapable of understanding aren't you? Try the links, there's actually a film on YouTube of the book. Watch it. Thanks for the info on Lord Acton, bit off topic but I guess it's quite useful in making you look intelligent, you obviously incapable of thinking for yourself.

your just incapable of understanding aren't you? Try the links, there's actually a film on YouTube of the book. Watch it. Thanks for the info on Lord Acton, bit off topic but I guess it's quite useful in making you look intelligent, you obviously incapable of thinking for yourself.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

Now I am truly confused. Are my ideas unacceptable because they are idiosyncratic or because they slavishly follow others, you seem to be accusing me of both things simultaneously and I can't even see how either would constitute a refutation...Appearing to be intelligent can be a great burden, you should be happy you don't have to deal with it.

Now I am truly confused. Are my ideas unacceptable because they are idiosyncratic or because they slavishly follow others, you seem to be accusing me of both things simultaneously and I can't even see how either would constitute a refutation...Appearing to be intelligent can be a great burden, you should be happy you don't have to deal with it.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

Your ideas are not unacceptable, they are deflection at best or just plain missing the point at least. Just visit the links, you know how to do that right? Then apply a bit if thought. Your country is the most unequal out of western countries because you've been sold a pack of lies for decades now. You've privatised power bases such as military and monetary/fiscal and removed all governance in the name of free markets. Now you are run by a bunch of gangsters who haven't quite realised that they cannot prop up their empire using economic theories designed to cripple them. Duh! Last post, good luck.

Your ideas are not unacceptable, they are deflection at best or just plain missing the point at least. Just visit the links, you know how to do that right? Then apply a bit if thought. Your country is the most unequal out of western countries because you've been sold a pack of lies for decades now. You've privatised power bases such as military and monetary/fiscal and removed all governance in the name of free markets. Now you are run by a bunch of gangsters who haven't quite realised that they cannot prop up their empire using economic theories designed to cripple them. Duh! Last post, good luck.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

I suppose time will tell who is deluded. Or more likely history will always be a fun house mirror in which we see our own obsessions and prejudices reflected.

Your link did not work. As a person assigned the classification of reduced metal capacity perhaps I shouldn't be making criticisms of my betters but next time do you think you might check a link before you post it....'Fascism today' sounds very interesting, like the 'new morality' AKA the old immorality or the 'Church of What's Happening Now' LINK ..New definitions for old words are so, bracing, they challenge the mind. You are no doubt familiar with the etymological philosopher Humpty Dumpty and his brilliant dissertation on the subject.

Your link did not work. As a person assigned the classification of reduced metal capacity perhaps I shouldn't be making criticisms of my betters but next time do you think you might check a link before you post it....'Fascism today' sounds very interesting, like the 'new morality' AKA the old immorality or the 'Church of What's Happening Now' LINK ..New definitions for old words are so, bracing, they challenge the mind. You are no doubt familiar with the etymological philosopher Humpty Dumpty and his brilliant dissertation on the subject.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(2306 days ago)

if you can't figure out whats wrong with the link I guess... What's the point, you know everything anyway, apart from the obvious that is!